a vision for the future

startafight · 2018-07-02 04:01:42

SKIP TO THINGS HIGHLIGHTED WITH BLUE FOR SPECIFIC TOPICS

things that i think jason could change start in red, the rest are player culture shifts

apologies for the long ass post, ive gotten too used to writing essays and its the only way i can express thoughts now. these are my thoughts on the entire situation of OHOL and what can/should be improved regarding the interface of the game itself, and the culture of the players. feel free to disagree or expand

***Murder and Griefing:

MURDER: the forums have been up in arms abour murder and griefing for a while now. we turn to jason to provide us the solution. we want bans, we want censorship, we want to pick and choose the lives we live and we want jason to punish the evildoers. but he's made it clear that he wants the players to decide on a solution and to work with what we've got, and we've done that for a while. there were towns with guards and towns where everyone was given weapons and towns that hid all the weapons in a neat, locked chest.

and yet that never works. a lot of that has to do with the fact that no matter what, we always end up at the point where all the other weapons are in the hands of a murderer (or a few more, in case of families that kill together) or we've dwindled to only a few living females.

a lot of that has to do with the interface. we have to put down a knife in order to pick up another item, and in the meanwhile someone can snatch up the knife and go on a killing spree. while that can be a chance to kill someone, it can also be a chance to be robbed or killed. we have two hands, yet we can only hold one berry, one knife, one leaf. if we at least could make a belt or fanny pack to store these additional items like we do for aprons, we could have a more secure and efficient way to swap and use items.

additionally, going through a backpack is honestly a huge pain. a lot of players i've seen actually put down their bags to rifle through them. i made a thread on how i watched a girl get her bag of knives stolen while doing this. it'd be understandable if it was a bag with multiple zippers, but its a small bag that can only hold 4 items. we should be able to swap out items like we do with baskets while its on our backs. or hey, maybe we can hold the bag in front of us with one hand, and go through it with another. i know i do that in real life.

jason should also make sure items dont disappear when people die on bushes so we dont lose any more keys

heres more on what i think about murder:
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2465

the tldr of it is: murder is an essential component of human society. we always have crime and we always have murder. we shouldn't expect jason to hand out bans for killing, having a society that dies due to murder is not entirely bad. HOWEVER, we should have a better system for murder so we can actually keep systems in place.

maybe it could take some time to kill someone, instead of it being instantaneous. lets say that in this new system, to kill someone it takes two seconds. but in those 2 seconds the victim can fight back by clicking on the murderer (i'm thinking in the case of knives), if the victim outclicks the murderer they should be unharmed and be able to escape. we've had many threads on weapons to incapacitate people and it would be useful here. regardless, this system makes it that death is avoidable for people who are attentive. but babies and children and elderly shouldn't be able to fight back. also, make it so that murder victims who have knives in bags or front pockets of aprons can whip those out and stab their killers. this kind of system makes murder risky instead of an instantaneous act. look at the thread i linked before for additional thoughts on injuries

GRIEFING: this is the most annoying act imo.

first off, i think the players should be responsible for making sure there aren't any griefers. we've had many threads about guards and the like, which seemed to have worked pretty well.

this only becomes a real problem in smaller towns. i was recently born into a small camp that had someone making lassos and bows despite the fact we didnt even have any metal tools yet. it should really be up to the mothers to realize their babies are actually demons. leave behind the ones that jump out of the mother's arms and those who are unresponsive. in bigger towns we've had cullers who wiped out the additional babies for the sake of populations stability. we have solutions, we just dont have players that implement them. this is a part of developing the culture of the games. you need to teach other players about population growth and kill or banish those who dont mind the population (and also those who seem to be griefers). it seems harsh but thats whats required to keep the civ healthy. i've suggested birth control to keep this from needing to get murdery.

this is why murder shouldn't have the full minute stun, we need to be able to cull out the bad seeds from our populations. i've seen some people mention that people who are murdered should be banned from the lineage and i agree. the three hour lineage ban should be in effect for those who died of murder. yes, it may include victims but if thats what needs to be done in exchange for a griefer-free life then so be it.

always ask where someones going with tools and make sure you pay attention to where theyre going and doing in order to prevent griefing.

the pace of the characters often have to do with how easily they can get away with shit. i propose a new system where walking (which is slightly slower than current speed) consumes less food. this will give players motivation to walk in cities, and then we can have the regular running (maybe by right clicking or double clicking where we want to go) which consumes the normal amount of hunger until we've run for over a minute, which then starts costing more hunger than normal.

***trade and expansion:

EXPANSION: there are many people who write off cities as being useless, and that's important. we need people to start satellite towns that have their own internal systems in order to create nearby trade routes. lets say a family branches out from a big city and they have excess crops. they can bring that into the big city and get extra metal hoes and tools in exchange.

there was a post a while back about a shroom dealer who would take payments in form of clothes. this is actually the closest we've been to currency in this game. clothes are valuable because it extends your hunger and it can be bartered for. and if someone is killed with clothes they can die on a berry patch and take it with them, making it essential to take them willingly. the shrooms were a rare commodity, unlike food, and so the players had a reason to give something up for it.

what we can understand from this exchange is that there is a possibility of trade, as long as there is something as rare in return. that means that we have the cornerstones required for building a society that relies on each other.

heres a post i wrote about branching off from your original city and im sure there are many others
https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2192

trade requires a stable system that can be maintained. that means APPRENTICES that keep lines functioning.

i've taken some and i've been some. the idea of apprentices has been more frequent with the specialization of the doctor. we need this to be the case for all jobs. there was a post about having teachers for children but that could not possibly cover the entirety of what people need to know to do their jobs well. having a well-formed culture requires having well-educated generations. it should be up to the individual bakers, blacksmiths, and farmers to teach the next generation on the back and forth required for a good city.

farming should be maintained by a group of 3-4 people so that there's someone to run the water in case the wells are dry. at least two of these people should be apprentices, id suggest girls so you have a group of females that are staying near the home, but noob boys are also fine to farm.

blacksmiths should be a constant job, instead of one created when a tool is needed. you should either be constantly producing, or out to get more materials to forge with, otherwise you will end up with a backup caused by a need for that one hoe.

bakers are reliant on the shepards and hunters and farmers. those three are an entire cycle that needs to be facilitated by the CONDUCTOR. thats what im calling the person who runs around with the cart, bringing materials needed from place to place. the conductor should make sure that baskets of carrots and bowls of berries go to the shepard, and that the mutton goes to the baker. the pies from the baker should be distributed evenly to the farmers and the shepards, and to other institutions. the hunters should always bring their catches near the baker, but if not, the conductor should make sure they are brought where they are needed.

the conductor is an ESSENTIAL part of a good large town. people may think that a person with the cart of pies is useless, but they provide for the locations, making sure that people dont need to leave their spots to get what they need, which also lets them keep track of the tools around them to prevent griefers. the conductor's role can be combined with the guard's and they could be given additional knife bags to keep safe. the job of the conductor should work like the apprenticeship and the knife should ONLY be given when the child reaches adulthood and is known to be trustworthy.

this all keeps the city healthy enough to expand and afford trade. if all goes well we could have additional traders who go from town to town and bring goods in exchange for food or buckets of water. mothers could do this job well if we can put babies in carts. if we have children we know the routes from babyhood, that increases likelyhood of success.

***warfare and leadership

like i mentioned in the first thread i linked, i think war is useful. war can be a way to establish real institutions of power as well as use up excess population. i dont believe we will ever have a true irl-style monarch because that requires a single line supported by multiple individuals with weapons. in reality monarchs were established through means of power, and then through the idea of "divine right to rule", one generated by the gods and supported by an "unbroken" line. however, the fact most people in a city are related makes this irrelevant, as we are all children of the same eve. BUT this would make the eve the closest thing to the "divine ruler" as we would get. if we manage to get leadership that lasts through the one appointed by eve and then so forth, that could be the closest to "divine right" as we could get. this is quite unlikely and would last a single generation, or two if lucky.

what's more likely is that we could have several "generals" who act as mentors for other "soldiers". this requires a sustained relationship between the blacksmith and the generals to equip the soldiers. generals should pick their soldiers based on trust. this would be most effective in already big colonies and have the same effect as guards that were in previous towns. what happens with war and the like should be up to these individuals and i hesitate to propose a system for them because i know they will not follow guidelines. they are the surplus of men in the town and i suggest they be used to pick battles OR ensure proper facilitation. again, these could be merged with the CONDUCTOR (see trade and expansion for more on that role) to give the other townspeople assurance that they have a purpose in the society

***Future:

for the future i envision ohol's societies to be built up of massive towns surrounded by satellite colonies. ive also seen people start offshoot farms that provided massive amounts of carrots and other foods for the town in times of famine and we've had giant towns surrounded by walls and im sure they can be built again if we are given the proper moderating tools to keep our colonies progressive. these tools include a coherent idea of the layout of the towns - which needs proper leadership - and facilitation of trade internally and externally.

Last edited by startafight (2018-07-02 04:06:00)

Lum · 2018-07-02 12:13:42

Wait. "If we could only make a belt like we do for aprons" I don't get why you would need a belt if the apron is already a solution for storing a knife individually

subria · 2018-07-02 15:02:53

Magaret Thatcher said: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

In OHOL, we have no choice except Socialism. That is reason for all.

A griefer can take a knife (belong to all) to kill anyone.
A griefer can take a tool (belong to all) to hide.
Anyone can eat food but do nothing.

But with ownership, we can fix and we will have leader, war, trading.

Last edited by subria (2018-07-02 15:05:37)

jasonrohrer · 2018-07-02 16:19:10

Thanks for the write-up, startafight. This is all stuff that I'm still thinking about.

subria, you're right about the ownership thing.

However, in real life, there is no god-given ownership of anything. Those rules (what we call property rights) are constructed---and more importantly, enforced---by people.

There's no way to inspect a lost hammer in real life and determine who owns it. If you find one on the ground, there's nothing stopping you from taking it. Likewise, if you beat someone up and steal their hammer, there's no fundamental law of the universe that stops you from doing this.

The victim can get their hammer back either through a direct individual act of force/violence, or by resorting to the legal system (police, courts, etc.), where the victim will be asked to prove that the hammer was their hammer (purchase receipts, sworn testimony, witnesses, etc.), and then eventually, the legal system will exert force/violence on the thief to get the hammer back and return it to the owner.

I.e., the hammer isn't "locked" to the owner by some magical force. It's just a hammer. Just a bunch of atoms, no different from any other bunch of atoms.

All that said, this game has many limitations. Communication barriers, time shortages, etc. This makes setting up and running a legal system hard.

An "automatic" property rights system is something that I've thought about. Imagine a system where no one could touch your stuff. They couldn't grab your ax. They couldn't pick your field. There would have to be some way for you to pick an heir before your death.

But I worry that those same limitations would make such a system a real pain. Crops are dying, and the owner is off on an errand, but no one else can water them because of hard-coded property rights.

And also, the idea of all this stuff on the ground that is invisibly "locked" seems like a UI nightmare.

MOST multi-player building games have some kind of hard-coded property rights. Rust has tool chests. But those only protect buildings, not loose property. However, players also have huge inventories. Furthermore, the tool chest itself can be "taken over" by anyone who can reach it, meaning that the whole thing is really predicated on locks anyway. The tool chest essentially just prevents the "cement over my front door" problem, because it prevents building in a radius.

I'm not sure why people haven't built walls around fields, with locked doors, to establish ownership. The tools for building property rights, and inheritance (pass the key on before you die) are in place. I do see quite a few walls in the bigger towns, but part of the problem might be that constructing these things is a trans-generational project, and the purpose gets lost over time. Like, if you are trying to build a locked field, you'll die before it is completed, and the next generation will complete it in a different way.

However, I see this as the grand challenge of the game. How do you complete such a transgenerational project? How do you communicate across generations and keep the goal in-tact?

Somehow, people built cathedrals in real life...

forestglade · 2018-07-02 16:45:26

Jason, transgenerational projects is hard when the system favors griefers. Especially new camps, even in big cities, the reason they keep going is some Eve luckily spawned in them.

Ribbz · 2018-07-02 17:17:55

jasonrohrer wrote:

An "automatic" property rights system is something that I've thought about. Imagine a system where no one could touch your stuff. They couldn't grab your ax. They couldn't pick your field. There would have to be some way for you to pick an heir before your death.

Having the system target ownership down to individual people would be a nightmare to overtake, but i think there is an easier solution to the "ownership" problem.

Professions

It may sound a little silly but i think this would be an ideal solution to the issue. You have your first child and you name him/her. Afterwards you can say something along the lines of "you are a smith" or "you can do anything". Using the first phrase will now limit the child's access to the hammer and all the smithing tools needed. Using the second phrase has no limits on access which is how we currently play at the moment. If you want a child to do more than one job then you say "you are a farmer" after you've already declared the child would be a smith which now grants access to the hoe.

The only issue is we'd need a UI for this so we could see where we need more manpower. I'd say a text command like "/jobs" or "/professions" to have something similar to the tool tip box, but it'll come out from the left side and cover a portion of the screen. The window should show each different profession along with the hierarchy of the profession I.e, Joe Smith is the lead Shepard while Jimmy Smith and John Smith are the Foremen. Passing on leadership from Joe to Jimmy could happen in one of two ways. Joe could declare Jimmy Smith the new lead by saying "Jimmy Smith is the new Lead" or "Jimmy Smith will replace me". The other way is that once Joe has died the leadership will automatically be passed down to the most senior foreman, which is Jimmy in this example.

What if John Smith wants to go work with Sally Smith who is the lead cook? Sally Smith could first say "John Smith can work with me" which would retain John's shepard role and now give access to cooking items.

The only issue i could see with this setup is that if we name a kid the same thing we named the last kid there is no change to the name. We ought to have it coded so if there is already someone named Jimmy and another kid gets named Jimmy he will now be called Jimmy II while the original Jimmy is Jimmy I.

jasonrohrer wrote:

How do you complete such a transgenerational project? How do you communicate across generations and keep the goal in-tact?
Somehow, people built cathedrals in real life...

I think adding a "/set goal" text command would help with this. A mother could set her goal in life as "building a new town east" or maybe "getting sheep". A child could use "/goals" to review current goals in a window that would come out from the right side. If no goals were set by the mother then the goals of the grandmother will be used.

The issue with building a "cathedral" or trying to complete any long term project is there is nothing stating what the building was, who was doing it, why it was being done. In real life there would be documents on the purchase and sell of the stones needed, who was working the project, who led the workers, etc.

Last edited by Ribbz (2018-07-02 17:21:11)

startafight · 2018-07-02 18:32:31

Lum wrote:

Wait. "If we could only make a belt like we do for aprons" I don't get why you would need a belt if the apron is already a solution for storing a knife individually

because aprons cost a lot of resources. ive seen probably three at the most and most of the time its the doctors who wear them. we should have a low-cost holder that we can just hook items onto. but yes, we could use aprons instead. i just find it annoying to make. i also think if we have a belt we could hang more items on it. like a ring of keys AND a knife. now that'd be wild

jasonrohrer wrote:

Thanks for the write-up, startafight. This is all stuff that I'm still thinking about.

im glad i got it right haha. i found in writing this post that we actually have a lot of ways to change the culture and therefore the function of this game outside of system changes. the sheer importance of raising and rearing children really comes up quite frequently. i hope to implement some of these systems and see how it turns out, hopefully others will start thinking about establishing systems themselves

Ribbz wrote:

It may sound a little silly but i think this would be an ideal solution to the issue. You have your first child and you name him/her. Afterwards you can say something along the lines of "you are a smith" or "you can do anything". Using the first phrase will now limit the child's access to the hammer and all the smithing tools needed. Using the second phrase has no limits on access which is how we currently play at the moment. If you want a child to do more than one job then you say "you are a farmer" after you've already declared the child would be a smith which now grants access to the hoe.

the thing about professions is that we expect people to act as machines. the thing is that were a group of players who are not united in the same goal. we need to make sure that there is communication set up between babies and parents so that we can create a society that functions with set jobs. it shouldnt be all up to the mother to decide the child's life path because there could be a more urgent need for other jobs later on in the child's life. it also assumes that kids we assigns jobs wont die in childhood, which is pretty likely.

communication through the role of the conductor is the easiest way to find and assign jobs. someone who observes the whole town and knows whats lacking where and what resources go where can tell the mothers "we need a farmer", and then the mother can ask the child "do you know how to farm?" and if the child declines it should be okay because we are free to choose what we do.

i dont know how to articulate this clearly but let me try my best: parents need to find a job that the child has aptitude for and wants to go into. it has to be willing. parents should work with the rest of the civ to find an appropriate place for the child, but the child should be able to change their "roles" later in life as the need for another job increases or decreases. what we need is consistency and that has to come from the players, not jason. this isnt a civilization simulator where we follow established protocols to build the biggest castle or whatever. we have to decide on our own goals and ensure that we have people following up on those goals.

the idea of role rotations will be useful in the communication of goals and to ensure the next generation's progress.

an example:

you are a hunter. you've been a hunter since you were 6 and you know the routes. now you are 40. you know your time is fading and you only have a few trips left in you.

so you choose two smart looking children and ask them if they want to hunt. they agree. you ask them to take baskets with snares to follow you. you have two apprentices.

you tell them the rules of hunting rabbits, that only families should be snared. and that carrots can be dug up and eaten. they learn quickly and now you are 50.

you return home in time to pass on your belongings to your apprentices or your family or a random baby. you tell your apprentices to teach the next generation how to hunt rabbits and you die.

but in doing this you've created the job opening by taking on the role of the mentor. you've transferred your goals to the next generation and ensured a CONSTANT supply chain. by picking two apprentices you've ensured that at least one will survive.

this kind of "role-assignment" doesnt require a completely reworked system from jason, its something we can do on our own. we just need a change in culture that emphasizes less on finishing individual projects and finding someone to continue them.

i recently continued a house-building project after my mentor's death and someone had completed it 100% when i respawned in that town. i wouldn't have known about the purpose of the house or known that the builder had died if i didnt have a mentor who assigned me tasks to complete the house.

heres the system we should try to follow:

in a place without a set mentor-pupil system in place:

ages 6-40: do that one job you've picked, whether it be farming, hunting, blacksmithing, or conducting

ages 40+: find a pupil to pass on your knowledge to and tell them of your goals

in a place with a mentor-pupil system in place:

ages 6-10: find a mentor in a job you want to work in

ages 11-40: work in that job

ages 40+: find a pupil to pass on your knowledge to

its about rationing out the time thats been given to extend your knowledge to people beyond your immediate family. we NEED consistency to survive, but we also need a goal for the future that is shared by those inheriting our jobs. its up to the players to create this experience

grhmhome · 2018-07-02 19:11:35

MURDER: the forums have been up in arms abour murder and griefing for a while now. we turn to jason to provide us the solution. we want bans, we want censorship, we want to pick and choose the lives we live and we want jason to punish the evildoers. but he's made it clear that he wants the players to decide on a solution and to work with what we've got, and we've done that for a while. there were towns with guards and towns where everyone was given weapons and towns that hid all the weapons in a neat, locked chest.

I don't want bans or censorship. Servers should decide if they want to allow pvp or be pve and a server is allowed to ban people who break that servers rules.

Last edited by grhmhome (2018-07-02 19:41:59)

jasonrohrer · 2018-07-02 20:10:07

Not as simple as that, grhmhome.

I didn't put killing in the game because I wanted a game about killing.

I put killing in the game because it is necessary if we ever hope to enforce any kind of rules or laws in our towns.

Go into 2HOL or any other mod of OHOL that has removed killing, and try your hand at griefing. There is absolutely nothing the people of the town can do to stop you. They can't kill you. So you can live an entire 60 minutes destroying everything that they make right before their eyes. They can yell at you. They cannot stop you.

The games that you're talking about that have "removed PVP", like many MMOs, have no permanent ways that players can affect the world, so there's no way to grief.

startafight · 2018-07-02 20:12:19

grhmhome wrote:

MURDER: the forums have been up in arms abour murder and griefing for a while now. we turn to jason to provide us the solution. we want bans, we want censorship, we want to pick and choose the lives we live and we want jason to punish the evildoers. but he's made it clear that he wants the players to decide on a solution and to work with what we've got, and we've done that for a while. there were towns with guards and towns where everyone was given weapons and towns that hid all the weapons in a neat, locked chest.
I don't want bans or censorship. Servers should decide if they want to allow pvp or be pve and a server is allowed to ban people who break that servers rules.

yes not everyone wants bans or censorship but we have threads about them n these ideas have been proposed. i also think pve servers would be nice but if we dont get em we dont get em. the point is that we should work with what we have because we can already do so much with what weve got

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2018-07-02 04:01:42

a vision for the future

#2 2018-07-02 12:13:42

Re: a vision for the future

#3 2018-07-02 15:02:53

Re: a vision for the future

#4 2018-07-02 16:19:10

Re: a vision for the future

#5 2018-07-02 16:45:26

Re: a vision for the future

#6 2018-07-02 17:17:55

Re: a vision for the future

#7 2018-07-02 18:32:31

Re: a vision for the future

#8 2018-07-02 19:11:35

Re: a vision for the future

#9 2018-07-02 20:10:07

Re: a vision for the future

#10 2018-07-02 20:12:19

Re: a vision for the future

Board footer